9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in writing on November 22, 2002, at 11 a.m. 1. Whether you are assessed to income-tax? If assessed, your permanent account number and designation of the Assessing Officer, (please furnish a copy of acknowledgment for filing the return of income for the latest assessment year for which return has been filed). 2. Details of your income from different sources during the last four years ended on March 31, 1999, March 31, 2000, March 31, 2001 and March 31, 2002. (please furnish copies of the trading and profit and loss account and balance-sheets for the above years if books of account have been maintained.) 3. Details of immovable properties owned by you with date of acquisition. 4. Name of the institutions in which you have made investments with nature and amount of investments. 5. Details of motor vehicles if any owned by you with date of acquisition. 6. Details of assets and liabilities as on March 31, 1999, March 31, 2000, March 31, 2001 and March 31, 2002. 7. List of persons who have made term-recurring deposits of rupees fifty thousand and above as on date along with their complete postal addresses and amounts of deposits. Please note that split deposits and deposits in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notices are within the powers of the authorities who issued the same. He contended that the co-operative societies do not enjoy any privilege under the Income-tax Act except the benefits specifically granted to them such as lower rate of tax, exemption from tax to the extent provided under section 80P, and immunity from deduction of tax at source on certain interest receipts by the societies. In other words, the contention of the respondents is that a society registered under the co-operative societies Act like any other person is subject to the discipline provided under the Income-tax Act including section 133(6) of the Act. The first question to be examined is whether notice under section 133(6) of the Income-tax Act can be issued to a co-operative society including a co-operative bank. Section 133 is extracted hereunder: "133. The Assessing Officer, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the Joint Commissioner or the Commissioner (Appeals) may, for the purposes of this Act,--... (6) require any person, including a banking company or any officer thereof, to furnish information in relation to such points or matters, or to furnish statements of accounts and affairs verified in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . A society constituted under the Co-operative Societies Act is an artificial juridical person and so much so it answers the definition of "person" under the definition above referred. Therefore, section 133(6) squarely applies to a co-operative society as well. Sri M.K. Damodaran, learned counsel appearing for one of the petitioners, has pointed out that the banking companies are specifically included in section 133(6) and going by the care taken by the Legislature in specifically including banking companies, it has to be assumed that the co-operative societies are specifically excluded from the scope of the definition, "person". I do not think his contention can be accepted. In fact specific inclusion of banking company in section 133(6) was unnecessary because banking companies otherwise come within the scope of "person" under the residuary category (vii) of the definition clause. Probably, since the enquiry under section 133(6) will have to be directed against the banks, as banks are the main custodians of public money the Legislature did not want to leave any room for doubt. Therefore, want of specific mention of the co-operative society or co-operative bank in section 133(6) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is absolutely within the powers of the income-tax authorities and co-operative societies or banks cannot claim any immunity for hoarding black money. Even though not specifically conceded by the petitioners, their case is that unless societies enjoy immunity from section 133(6) proceedings and information on deposits and depositors is kept out of reach of the Income-tax Department, they will not get deposits, or the existing depositors will withdraw the deposits leading to liquidity problem for them. I do not think this is a ground to resist a notice under section 133(6). If co-operative banks and cooperative societies are allowed to maintain deposits beyond the scrutiny of the Income-tax Department, then the societies will become safe havens for hoarding black-money in the country which is opposed to public policy. Besides this, the statutory authorities vested with the responsibility to levy tax on income will be prevented from achieving their objective and that will defeat the very purpose of the Income-tax Act. The Supreme Court of India will upholding section 269SS of the Income-tax Act in the case of Asst. Director of Inspection (Investigation) v. Kumari A.B. Shanthi [2002] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oker or agent or any person concerned in the management of a stock or commodity exchange to furnish a statement of the names and addresses of all persons to whom he or the exchange has paid any sum in connection with the transfer, whether by way of sale, exchange or otherwise, of assets, or on whose behalf or from whom he or the exchange has received any such sum, together with particulars of all such payments and receipts. Therefore, the powers under section 133 are in the nature of survey and a general inquiry to identify persons who are likely to have taxable income and see whether there is compliance by them in regard to payment of tax. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the co-operative banks and co-operative societies are only opposing calling for details of the deposits held by them generally. They do not have any objection in giving details of deposits held by any particular person required by the Department. They further contended that the banking companies including nationalised banks are not called upon to furnish details generally with regard to deposits held by them. Learned standing counsel for the respondents denied this allegation and he has contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
